mwc Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I feel in this discussion you are focused on disproving Christian myth. I was about to walk away when I saw your reply. I'll get to the rest later but I want to ask you to not project this onto me. The religion came up because the "gnostics" came up and not because the "soul" came up. Maybe you mentioned them because you felt they were related and I made the mistake of just seeing the "gnostics" as more a side-issue. I don't know how this all got tied in here but if we get this sorted out I think it will be for the best. I have better places to try to disprove xian myth if I'm so inclined. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 What is that something else? Is this something else a real process we can understand or a speculative one that requires special pleading? My question is how is it distinguishable from id and if it is not, why not just call it id so everyone's on the same page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 So what "magic" does the electo-chemical process do? I have no idea. But that's all it does. I have watched computers get more and more sophisticated over time and they're not conjuring up new worlds but they're just more powerful at manipulating data so that new worlds can be conjured up. One day the AI inside will imagine it's alive and might even think it has a "soul" too. Once it gains enough processing power. But that doesn't mean it does. Unless having a "soul" is just ability to contemplate you have a soul? If that's the case then we should be satisfied since we've all already achieved this "enlightenment" so many seek. Highlighting this so it doesn't get lost in the discussion, because I think this is key to the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 My question is how is it distinguishable from id and if it is not, why not just call it id so everyone's on the same page. It's been years since I took any psych (early 90's) but I would hope to have an answer to this as well (in simple terms since I didn't do philosophy but sociology instead). mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 My question is how is it distinguishable from id and if it is not, why not just call it id so everyone's on the same page. It's been years since I took any psych (early 90's) but I would hope to have an answer to this as well (in simple terms since I didn't do philosophy but sociology instead). mwc And you wonder why I think this is about having all the answers? Is there anything you don't have an answer for wonderboy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts